You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Is Hillary the new Al Smith?
2007-10-11
Steven Hayward, "No Left Turns"

. . . the real historical comparison taking shape these days may be with Hillary and . . . Al Smith! My thesis is simple: Hillary is going to become the Al Smith of our age: an inevitable nominee, and a sure loser for similar reasons to Smith in 1928. It is not just that a woman president is likely unacceptable to a decisive portion of the swing vote (which will be loathe to admit this to pollsters), but also that she is just too emblematic of the Deep Blueness of the blue states in a way that her husband was able to conceal successfully.

These thoughts came to mind as I was reading a 1925 essay on Smith by Walter Lippmann, in which he judged:

The availability of Al Smith is glaring, indisputable, overwhelming. And yet he is unavailable. By the unspoken and unwritten law of the United States, as it stands today, he cannot be nominated by any national party.

Lippmann was wrong about this judgment, of course, but his broader analysis is correct on why Smith couldnÂ’t win the presidency. The parallels arenÂ’t exact, but close enough to prompt some reflection:

One cannot say that the new urban civilization which is pushing Al Smith forward into national affairs is better or worse than the older American civilization of town and country which dreads him and will resist him. But one can say that they do not understand each other, and that neither has yet learned that to live it must let live. The conflict is an inevitable consequence of our history. It seems, however, to be the fate of this genial man to deepen that conflict and to hasten it, and to make us face the conflict sooner than we are ready. . . The Ku Kluxers may talk about the Pope to the lunatic fringe, but the main mass of opposition is governed by an instinct that to accept Al Smith is to certify and sanctify a way of life that does not belong to the America they love. Here is not trivial conflict.

Maybe this all means that in another generation, weÂ’ll be observing "AL Smith/Hillary Clinton" dinners, with an ecumenical Catholic/Methodist clergy presiding.
Posted by:Mike

#4  TOPIX NEWS/WORLDNEWS > NY POST > A PLAN TO TAKE DOWN HILLARY?
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-11 22:39  

#3  I think Al's voice did him in...seriously...
Posted by: borgboy   2007-10-11 16:09  

#2  Is Hillary the new Al Smith Sharpton?

All fixed.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-11 15:49  

#1  If the 2008 election is the question, Hillary is definitely not the answer. She is just another talking head political poque floating to the top by any means. If the trunks come up with anyone that sounds reasonable they will probably win in a contest with Hillary. She is shrill, comes across bitchy, speaks in tongues (well, fake accents), is opportunistic, and I think wishy-washy. These are some of the nicer words I can think of to describe her. She would be a Nancy Pelosi in the White House.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-10-11 15:18  

00:00